FOUR OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CASES AFFECTING LATINOS


There are four key cases that impact Latinos and people of color in the United States.  The first two cases, Lau and Plyler, are from an era when the courts were a place that people of color and the poor could go to for vindication of their rights.  These two historic cases represent what is best about our system of justice. The other two cases, Sandoval and Hoffman, are recent and exhibit a new type of court that has closed its doors to Latinos and people of color. These two rollback cases have scaled back the hard-earned victories of the civil rights movement.

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

For thousands of students who did not speak English in 1970's era San Francisco, simply understanding what was happening in the classroom was nearly impossible. The school district they attended did not offer to teach children in their native language, nor did it offer to teach them English. And on top of that, the California Education Code required students to be proficient in English before they could receive a diploma.
 
So, a group of more than 2,000 students of Chinese ancestry filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District, alleging that they were receiving unequal educational opportunities because of the lack of programming to help with their language barriers.

The Supreme Court ruled that the non-English speaking students were being discriminated against and required the school district to provide educational programs to deal with the language barriers. The Court based its decision on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination on the ground of "race, color or national origin" in any program or activity receiving federal funding.  Because the San Francisco Unified School District received federal funds, it was obligated under the Civil Rights Act to provide equal treatment to all students.  Additionally, the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the governmental body that was charged with making sure federally-funded school districts did not discriminate against students, had issued guidelines requiring school districts to "rectify the language deficiency." The San Francisco schools needed to comply with those regulations, the Court held.

Though the 1974 decision never outlined actual steps that school districts should take to implement English as a second language (ESL) classes or bilingual classrooms, it does stand for the proposition that non-English speaking citizens have a right to an equal education.

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

Public schools in Texas shut their doors to undocumented children from Mexico in the 1970s. It was not until after several lawsuits were filed against Texas officials for denying the children an education that the school system changed.

In 1975, Texas enacted a law that forbade school districts from using federal money to educate undocumented children. As a result, several school districts in Texas either denied admission to undocumented children or charged them a tuition fee to attend a public school, a school that was free to everyone but them. For children who had entered the United States without prior approval and whose parents could not afford to pay tuition, this meant they could not attend school. Numerous lawsuits were filed against Texas officials, including a class action on behalf of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin who were living in Texas. 

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court and ended in a victory for the children. The Court held that the Texas law violated the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits Congress and the states from enacting laws that discriminate against classes of people. Undocumented children are entitled to receive the same free education as U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, the Court held, and the Texas law discriminated against these children by denying them the same opportunity to attend a free public school. Additionally, the Court noted, these innocent children were not to blame for their undocumented status, as most did not personally make the choice to move and live in the United States. Denying them a basic education would not only discriminate against them for something they had no control over, it would also impose a lifetime hardship on them because of it.

As a result of this case, schools in Texas and across the country are required to provide a free public education to all children, including those who might have initially entered the country without approval.

Alexander v. Sandoval (2001)

Martha Sandoval could drive and could read the signs on the road in English, but she was not a fluent English speaker. Alabama, where she lived, however, had passed an "English only" policy. When she was not allowed to take any part of her driving test in Spanish, and therefore discriminated against on the basis of national origin, Ms. Sandoval sued her state.

In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that Martha Sandoval had no right to bring her case in court. The Court decided that private individuals could only sue to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or national origin) if they can prove intentional discrimination, something almost impossible to do.

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.  (2002)

Jose Castro and three other employees were fired from their jobs at Hoffman Plastics when they supported a campaign to unionize the company. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) looked into the incident and found that it was a violation of federal law to fire Mr. Castro and the other workers. It ordered Hoffman Plastics to compensate the plaintiffs for wages they would have earned had they not been fired. But when Hoffman Plastics officials learned that Castro had entered the country without approval, it filed an appeal and argued that it did not have to pay back pay to any undocumented workers.

The case went to the Supreme Court in 2002. The Court agreed with Hoffman Plastics and held that Mr. Castro was not entitled to any back pay because he was undocumented. The Court acknowledged that Hoffman Plastics had violated federal law by firing Mr. Castro and the others for supporting a labor union, but refused to give any legal redress to Mr. Castro because of his immigration status. The Court said that workers who are not "lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United States" did not have a right to receive any of their lost wages, even when the company that employs them violates the law. Awarding Mr. Castro the money he would have earned would condone and encourage future immigration violations, the Court held.

This case limits legal protection available for the many immigrants in this country who are working without documentation. This ruling makes it nearly impossible for undocumented workers to challenge unfair labor practices.  Undocumented workers cannot sue their employers for back pay, no matter how blatantly their employers violate the law.


Click on the links for more information about language rights, racial justice, workers' rights, or education.